Blazers & Timbers endorse same sex marriage

[RR7]

I think you're in the minority though. If the Blazers came out against gay marriage, I think a lot of people would be freaking out right now, and I suspect a few people would say that they will not follow the team until there was a change in management.

Oh, again, I'd be super annoyed at the position they were taking. But, again, support their right to take the position.

 

[Natebishop3]

Oh, again, I'd be super annoyed at the position they were taking. But, again, support their right to take the position.

I completely get your point, I just think you'd be in a minority of people who actually supported their right to make the decision.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

BNM said offended, that's not the same. And I was mostly talkong about the hypocrot thing, which none of these people would be even if they stopped supporting the team because they were anti human rights.

Sent from my banana using Tapatalk 4

 

[barfo]

But isn't that essentially what you're saying if you're in favor of the team being political when they support something you agree with, but reconsider your support of the team if they back something you don't agree with? That's basically sending the message that it's okay to be political as long as it's one of your beliefs, but it's not okay to be political if it's something you don't agree with.

It's totally ok for Chik-fil-A or the republican party to be political, but I don't plan to give any money to those organizations because I disagree with them. That doesn't mean I think they should be apolitical, it just means I think they suck.

Consistent would be to support the team being political now, but also support the team if they came out in favor of something you don't agree with.

That would be consistent, in the same way that you'd be consistent if you were just as happy with a loss as a win.

barfo

 

[RR7]

I completely get your point, I just think you'd be in a minority of people who actually supported their right to make the decision.

Maybe, maybe not. I think you would hear people pissed off if they came out against gay marriage. But I think the vast majority would be mad about the stance they were taking, and not that they publicly decided to take a stance. I think if they came out against it, we wouldn't be likely to see many people taking your stance, of saying hey, I'm against gay marriage, but keep politics out of it.

 

[Natebishop3]

Maybe, maybe not. I think you would hear people pissed off if they came out against gay marriage. But I think the vast majority would be mad about the stance they were taking, and not that they publicly decided to take a stance. I think if they came out against it, we wouldn't be likely to see many people taking your stance, of saying hey, I'm against gay marriage, but keep politics out of it.

But I think that's because most people don't look at it the way that I am. They see the issue that they're passionate about, and they are happy or pissed off about the team taking a stance on it.

I'm looking at it from a different angle. One that I wish more people would take, but it looks like I will be out in the cold on this one

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Is this really called for? I'm trying to have a respectful debate about the issue of involving politics in sports. I appreciate the people who have been willing to actually debate that topic and not make it specifically about gay marriage.

I for one do not want to talk about politics in sports. There are so many avenues for open debate. We have so many news channels, open forums, and such. Why do sports need to be used as a mechanism to push a political agenda? Do we really need to infuse such hotly contested topics into something that should be a unifier? Wouldn't you rather sports be something that everyone can enjoy together without thinking about who the person next to you voted for, whether they're in favor of abortion, or if they support gay marriage? Why can't we all just be Blazers fans?

Says the guy who can legally marry the person he wants to.

Yes, sports should remain completely apolitical right after we listen to the national anthem, salute the flag and thank the veterans for their sacrifices.

EDIT: But, no, the "boo hoo" part wasn't called for and I feel remorse.

 

[Natebishop3]

It's totally ok for Chik-fil-A or the republican party to be political, but I don't plan to give any money to those organizations because I disagree with them. That doesn't mean I think they should be apolitical, it just means I think they suck.



That would be consistent, in the same way that you'd be consistent if you were just as happy with a loss as a win.

barfo

Chik-fil-A does not specifically represent a city or region. They are a corporation that attempts to sell a product to many cities and many regions. While I think it's stupid for them to make a political statement, it doesn't send the same message as a pro team supporting an issue.

The Blazers represent the city of Portland. It's on their jersey when they travel to other places. Good or bad, they're our team. They represent everyone that lives in this city. The players, the managers, and the owner might change, but the team is part of our city's sense of place.

 

[Natebishop3]

Says the guy who can legally marry the person he wants to.

Yes, sports should remain completely apolitical right after we listen to the national anthem, salute the flag and thank the veterans for their sacrifices.

EDIT: But, no, the "boo hoo" part wasn't called for and I feel remorse.

Okay, so I can support gay marriage, I can vote for it, I can attend events that support it, and I can even attend a longtime gay friend's marriage..... but you can throw that in my face. Cool bro. Classy. Just keep on, keepin on.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Chik-fil-A does not specifically represent a city or region. They are a corporation that attempts to sell a product to many cities and many regions. While I think it's stupid for them to make a political statement, it doesn't send the same message as a pro team supporting an issue.

The Blazers represent the city of Portland. It's on their jersey when they travel to other places. Good or bad, they're our team. They represent everyone that lives in this city. The players, the managers, and the owner might change, but the team is part of our city's sense of place.

You don't speak for everyone in Portland, plenty of people don't "identify" with the Blazers, or sports, at all. They certainly do not represent everyone in this city.

 

[Natebishop3]

You don't speak for everyone in Portland, plenty of people don't "identify" with the Blazers, or sports, at all. They certainly do not represent everyone in this city.

You realize that when you put quotes around "identify" you are quoting me? I never said identify.

If you live in Portland, and the team travels around as the Portland Trail Blazers, they are representing you. Maybe not as you, the person, but they represent your city, and they reflect on the city that you live in. When they were the Jail Blazers, they reflected poorly on the city. It's not a personal choice that every person makes, it just is what it is. They affect how people from the outside view the city. They affect our sense of place.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Okay, so I can support gay marriage, I can vote for it, I can attend events that support it, and I can even attend a longtime gay friend's marriage..... but you can throw that in my face. Cool bro. Classy. Just keep on, keepin on.

You appear to be viewing gay marriage as a "political agenda" rather than a civil rights issue. Supporting the right to marry is waaaaay different than if the Blazers had come out as supporting Political Candidate X, Y, or Z. If you support the civil rights of the queer community, then you should be happy when banal things like sports teams start to support those civil rights as well, as that is a good indicator that progress is being made.

Or we could all just sit on our hands in fear of offending all the republican grandpas.

 

[Natebishop3]

You appear to be viewing gay marriage as a "political agenda" rather than a civil rights issue. Supporting the right to marry is waaaaay different than if the Blazers had come out as supporting Political Candidate X, Y, or Z. If you support the civil rights of the queer community, then you should be happy when banal things like sports teams start to support those civil rights as well, as that is a good indicator that progress is being made.

Or we could all just sit on our hands in fear of offending all the republican grandpas.

And you're not understanding that I'm talking about sports teams and divisive politics in general. I just don't want to see sports teams venture into that arena. I see this as the opening of a door that I don't really want to see opened. I'm not really talking about a specific politician. While those can be divisive, I don't think it's even close to the same level as gay marriage, abortion, or the death penalty. I'm probably forgetting a couple, but those are the really big ones that I view as extremely divisive in this country.

 

[Boob-No-More]

BNM said he'd be upset if the Blazers came out against gay marriage. So did Crand, so why can't you guys see the other side of the fence?

Actually, I didn't say I'd be upset, I said I'd be offended. I also said I'd be equally offended if the came out with a statement against straight marriage or against interracial marriage. My position is 100% consistent.

BNM

 

[Natebishop3]

Actually, I didn't say I'd be upset, I said I'd be offended. I also said I'd be equally offended if the came out with a statement against straight marriage or against interracial marriage. My position is 100% consistent.

BNM

You never did answer if you'd still support the team though.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Example, if the Blazers came out anti-2nd amendment, and started pushing for people to vote for an initiative that restricted gun ownership, I would most likely stop supporting the team. I don't want to give my money to an organization that is publicly pushing people to vote in one direction, which is exactly what the team is doing right now with gay marriage.

That is what bothers me.

Your example is inconsistent and illogical. In your example you're talking about taking away someone's existing rights. A pro gay marriage stance does not take away or threaten anyone's existing rights. Being pro gay marriage does not take away the right for straight people to marry.

Do you not see the fundamental difference?

BNM

 

[barfo]

You realize that when you put quotes around "identify" you are quoting me? I never said identify.

I don't think he was quoting you.

I'm sure John Boehner will come up with a "really great" solution to the financial crisis. Nobody is being quoted there.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Your example is inconsistent and illogical. In your example you're talking about taking away someone's existing rights. A pro gay marriage stance does not take away or threaten anyone's existing rights. Being pro gay marriage does not take away the right for straight people to marry.

Do you not see the fundamental difference?

BNM

My example is not meant to be comparative to the exact same issue. It's meant to illustrate another example of the Blazers picking a divisive issue. It's meant to be an example of an issue that, for me, would be a line in the sand that I would be unwilling to support. I'm not comparing apples to apples.

I get it, gay marriage is about equal rights. That's why I support it.

Do you not agree that gay marriage is a divisive issue in this country? There are people that support it and there are people that do not support it, no?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I don't think he was quoting you.

I'm sure John Boehner will come up with a "really great" solution to the financial crisis. Nobody is being quoted there.

barfo

But you did just quote Nate, that's what that Originally Posted by means.

 

[barfo]

But you did just quote Nate, that's what that Originally Posted by means.

Nobody is being quoted "there". Look where I'm pointing. And get your tongue off my carpet.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't think he was quoting you.

I'm sure John Boehner will come up with a "really great" solution to the financial crisis. Nobody is being quoted there.

barfo

I think this would be correct if he wasn't already quoting my post above, but because he was using the "originally posted by" quote box, and then also using quotations around "identify," it implied that he was quoting me.

If it was just a post that wasn't directly quoting me, I think you'd be right.

 

[RR7]

Your example is inconsistent and illogical. In your example you're talking about taking away someone's existing rights. A pro gay marriage stance does not take away or threaten anyone's existing rights. Being pro gay marriage does not take away the right for straight people to marry.

Do you not see the fundamental difference?

BNM

Agreed. And am sure people will say it's just because I support it. But I view it as a civil rights/equal rights issue. Sure, it's political in nature, because there are currently laws limiting some people's rights. But I view it less so than a politics issue. And more a basic human equality issue.
I was opposed to the war in Iraq, but would have been pretty annoyed if the TBs came out against the war. Even though I fell on the same side politically, something like that, IMO, should stay out of sports. I view this differently, but again, am sure people will say that's just because I support the issue.

 

[barfo]

I think this would be correct if he wasn't already quoting my post above, but because he was using the "originally posted by" quote box, and then also using quotations around "identify," it implied that he was quoting me.

If it was just a post that wasn't directly quoting me, I think you'd be right.

He quoted your post (without an FTFY), and then wrote his own post, in which he used "identify". If he'd changed the text in the Originally Posted by box, then you'd have a claim that he was misquoting you. From context, it seems quite clear that he wasn't claiming you used the word "identify", just as I was not claiming you used the words "really great".

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

He quoted your post (without an FTFY), and then wrote his own post, in which he used "identify". If he'd changed the text in the Originally Posted by box, then you'd have a claim that he was misquoting you. From context, it seems quite clear that he wasn't claiming you used the word "identify", just as I was not claiming you used the words "really great".

barfo

The strange part was that he put quotations around "identify" but he didn't put quotations around "represent" which is a word I did use.

 

[Natebishop3]

Agreed. And am sure people will say it's just because I support it. But I view it as a civil rights/equal rights issue. Sure, it's political in nature, because there are currently laws limiting some people's rights. But I view it less so than a politics issue. And more a basic human equality issue.
I was opposed to the war in Iraq, but would have been pretty annoyed if the TBs came out against the war. Even though I fell on the same side politically, something like that, IMO, should stay out of sports. I view this differently, but again, am sure people will say that's just because I support the issue.

So, in your opinion, gay marriage is an issue that is above politics? That's basically what you guys are saying, correct?

 

[RR7]

The strange part was that he put quotations around "identify" but he didn't put quotations around "represent" which is a word I did use.

Have you really never seen someone use quotes in a manner not just to specifically quote someone? Almost like using air quotes while talking.

 

[barfo]

The strange part was that he put quotations around "identify" but he didn't put quotations around "represent" which is a word I did use.

Since he'd quoted your comment in its entirety, there was not really any need for him to further quote any of the words you used, unless he wanted to indicate disagreement with your usage of the word or to call out a specific passage.

barfo

 

[RR7]

So, in your opinion, gay marriage is an issue that is above politics? That's basically what you guys are saying, correct?

Doesn't come out right saying it that way, but I suppose you can say that.
Many opponents of it oppose it because of religious reasons. Not because of politics, and the laws on the books currently, but because of what their god tells them, which puts it "above" or outside of politics on both sides, I suppose, no?

 

[Natebishop3]

Have you really never seen someone use quotes in a manner not just to specifically quote someone? Almost like using air quotes while talking.

If I want to put emphasis on a word, I use bold or sometimes I caps it. I only use quotations when I'm using something that the person said. Air quotes are similarly used, but you know what? I really don't want to start debating the usage of quotations and air quotes. Just really not in the mood

 

[Natebishop3]

Doesn't come out right saying it that way, but I suppose you can say that.
Many opponents of it oppose it because of religious reasons. Not because of politics, and the laws on the books currently, but because of what their god tells them, which puts it "above" or outside of politics on both sides, I suppose, no?

Sadly, it's intrinsically connected to politics because of the governmental aspect of marriage. If there were no benefits or rights included with marriage, it would be entirely religious and then it would become a completely different argument, don't you think? Because there are governmental benefits attached to marriage, it puts it squarely in the realm of politics, also with the inclusion of needing the public to vote on the issue for it to become officially accepted.

The religious aspect, not to mention the whole tradition of marriage, is what makes the issue so emotional for people. I really wish the government would just remove the benefits from marriage entirely. Just put it all on civil unions, so anyone can be joined in the eyes of the government, and you remove most of the issues facing gay marriage. Government should be out of it completely.